Indian Country Today Media Network.com - Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribehttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/tags/oliphant-v-suquamish-tribe
enThe Unintended Consequences of Disenrollmenthttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/02/02/unintended-consequences-disenrollment
<fieldset class="field-group-fieldset group-opinions-body form-wrapper" id="node_opinion_rss_group_opinions_body"><legend><span class="fieldset-legend">Body</span></legend><div class="fieldset-wrapper"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><span style="line-height:1.6em;">For most of the modern tribal self-determination era, American Indian nations have emphasized inclusion. Starting in the early 1970s, higher tribal membership numbers equated to higher federal self-determination dollars. As tribes otherwise redoubled their efforts to reverse the destruction caused by preceding federal Indian removal, assimilation, and relocation policies, tribes found strength in numbers through expanded membership. Once-terminated tribes that were restored over the last few decades were particularly aggressive about bulking up their membership rosters in order to rebuild everything that the United States destroyed in the 1950s. Because of the once normative nature of American indigenous kinship-based systems of inclusion, the Indian Nation rebuilding efforts were second nature.</span></p>
<p>Then, from 1978 to the turn of the 21st century, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a litany of decisions that, taken together, decimated tribal governments’ jurisdiction over persons in their territories. The Supreme Court held that tribes lacked inherent authority to criminally prosecute non-Indians for crimes they committed on tribal lands in <em>Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe</em> (U.S. 1978), and ruled that non-Indians are not subject to tribal civil authority except under limited circumstances in <em>Montana v. U.S</em>. (U.S. 1981). Ever since, Indian Country has relentlessly sought to claw back criminal and civil authority over all people who enter tribal territories. Through Congressional fixes like the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization, and judicial fixes like <em>U.S. v. Lara</em> (U.S. 2004) and <em>Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance </em>(9th Cir. 2011), Indian Country has succeeded in attempts to gradually restore tribal jurisdiction over all persons, specifically non-member-Indians and non-Indians, in tribal territories.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, mass tribal disenrollment reared its sinister head. Amidst billions of dollars of new Indian gaming wealth, American indigenous modes of kinship, sharing and inclusion were converted to colonialist modes of racialized difference, commercialism and exclusion. Although disenrollment fundamentally converts Indians to non-Indians, at least legally, offending tribes fail to appreciate that disenrollment also erodes the very sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction that Indian Country has fought so hard to restore for the last four decades. Offending tribes also fail to appreciate that just because an Indian is disenrolled it does not mean that person can categorically be excluded from tribal territories – as history proves, it is just not that easy to eradicate Indians.</p>
<p>Disenrollment of an Indian does not necessarily equate to that person’s exclusion from their territories. The federal Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), which also protects non-Indians, authorizes a U.S. District Court to issue a writ of <em>habeas corpus</em> “to test the legality of [a] detention by order of an Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1303; <em>Dodge v. Nakai</em> (D. Ariz. 1969). In <em>Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians</em> (2d Cir. 1996), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the “existence of the orders of permanent banishment” are criminal, not civil sanctions, and thus “sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites for <em>habeas corpus</em>” review by a federal court. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have held likewise. <em>See e.g.</em> <em>Sweet v. Hinzman</em> (W.D. Wash. 2008); <em>Quair v. Sisco</em> (E.D. Cal. 2004). More specifically, permanent “exclusion” of a disenrollee from tribal lands can constitute “a sufficiently severe restraint on liberty to constitute detention and invoke federal <em>habeas </em>jurisdiction under ICRA.” <em>Tavares v. Whitehouse</em> (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2014). In other words, even though a federal court might not review a person’s disenrollment from their tribe, it can still review the exclusion <em>de novo</em> and, in the process, apply the protections afforded by the federal Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>Nor does disenrollment necessarily amount to the loss of an Indian’s land or home. Due to federal Indian allotment efforts in the late 1800s and early 1900s, individual Indians own allotment land. As a result of federal Indian housing programs, individual Indians also own homes affixed to tribal trust lands. The U.S. Constitution and ICRA, and many tribal constitutions, each prevent the taking of an Indian’s property for public use without just compensation. 25 U.S.C. § 1302(8); <em>Irving v. Hodel</em> (U.S. 1987). And, a tribal or federally-aided taking of Indian-owned property is generally redressible in tribal and federal court, respectively.</p>
<p>Nor does disenrollment mean that a disenrolled Indian cannot inherit allotted lands. In 2008, a federal Indian probate judge refused to give full faith and credit to a tribal administrative decision to posthumously disenroll a deceased Indian. <em>In re: Lorena Joan Butler</em>, No. P-00001-7499-IP (U.S. Dept. Interior, OHA, Jan. 31, 2008) the probate judge ruled that since the decedent and all of her legal heirs were enrolled when she died, it mattered not that they were all subsequently disenrolled. Her disenrolled heirs were awarded interests in her Indian trust estate. In this way, Indian estate planning can help shield a person and her descendants from the effects of disenrollment. So even though a tribe might be able to sever an Indian’s membership connection with their people, that tribe may not ever be able to sever her sacred connection with her family lands. (For more about the despicable notion of “posthumous disenrollment,” <em>see </em>“<a href="http://www.galandabroadman.com/2014/08/disenrolling-the-dead/" target="_blank">Disenrolling the Dead</a>.”)</p>
<p>Meanwhile, an offending tribe loses critical aspects of sovereign authority over not only the disenrolled Indian, but also over the tribe’s territories. Under <em>Oliphant</em>, the tribe cannot assert criminal jurisdiction over crimes that disenrolled members may commit on tribal land – including those “crimes” of private redress sought in the absence of any legal remedy for disenrollment. Under <em>Montana</em>, the consensual relationship with her tribe that was her membership had been severed, arguably rendering her generally beyond the tribe’s civil adjudicatory jurisdiction for actions she may take on reservation fee lands – perhaps in civil disobedience of her tribe’s vindictive termination of her tribal status. And under <em>Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Shirley</em> (U.S. 2001), that tribe may also lose taxing power over her activities on such reservation lands.</p>
<p>So instead of “exercis[ing] a robust form of sovereignty over its territory and all people within its territory,” a tribe that excludes its own people from its jurisdiction vis-à-vis disenrollment becomes a “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/15/tribal-sovereignty-vs-racial-justice/cherokee-nation-underhanded-racial-politics" target="_blank">weak sovereign</a>” under logic espoused through the <em>New York Times</em> by Professor Matthew Fletcher. That offending tribe becomes the antithesis of Indian self-determination, having succumbed to archaic federal ways of tribal termination and sovereignty diminishment. These are but some of the profound, unintended consequences of tribal disenrollment.</p>
<p><em>Gabriel S. Galanda is the managing lawyer of Galanda Broadman, PLLC, an American Indian-owned law firm dedicated to advancing and defending Indian rights. Gabe descends from Nomlaki and Concow Peoples of Northern California and is a citizen of the Round Valley Indian Tribes.</em></p>
</div></div></div></div></fieldset>
<div class="field field-name-field-short-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Short title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Unintended Consequences of Disenrollment</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/category/government" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Government</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/politics" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Politics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-full-name field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Full name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Gabriel S. Galanda</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/gabriel-s-galanda" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Gabriel S. Galanda</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/disenrollment-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Disenrollment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/oliphant-v-suquamish-tribe" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/indian-civil-rights-act-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Indian Civil Rights Act</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/icra" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ICRA</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author-image field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Author image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/author/gabriel-s.-galanda" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Gabriel S. Galanda</a></div></div></div>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:36:42 +0000mazecyrus158978 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.comhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/02/02/unintended-consequences-disenrollment#commentsBIA Head Kevin Washburn Speaks to ICTMN About Bay Mills and the Need to Resolve Water Rightshttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/11/17/bia-head-kevin-washburn-speaks-ictmn-about-bay-mills-and-need-resolve-water-rights-157867
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><em>Interior Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn was in New York City in September as the historic </em><a href="http://peoplesclimate.org/" target="_blank"><em>Peoples’ Climate March</em></a><em> and the United Nations General Assembly opened its 69th regular session with the first </em><a href="http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/meetings/indigenous/#&amp;panel1-1" target="_blank"><em>World Conference on Indigenous Peoples</em></a><em>,</em><em> where he </em><em>added to our excitement here at ICTMN by taking a few hours to sit with us for an interview.</em></p>
<p><em>Washburn holds the government’s top administrative position dealing with federal Indian law and right now he’s in the midst of reforming the most controversial regulations in Indian county – the rules for federally recognizing an American Indian tribe.</em></p>
<p><em>The following is part 3 of that interview. For readability and clarity, we have chosen not to identify individual speakers presenting comments and queries by the ICTMN panel.</em></p>
<p><strong>Last time we talked, we asked you about the Bay Mills case, but it was still pending in front of the Supreme Court and you couldn’t say much. What do you think of the Supreme Court decision and in the long term do you think it was ultimately good or bad for Indian country? [In the Bay Mills case, the high court ruled that the state of Michigan was barred by tribal sovereignty from suing the Bay Mills Indian Community over an off-reservation casino it had opened.]</strong></p>
<p>RELATED: <a href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/05/27/bay-mills-beats-michigan-tribal-sovereign-immunity-upheld-155043" target="_self">Bay Mills Beats Michigan; Tribal Sovereign Immunity Upheld</a></p>
<p>Let me share just a little background on that decision. I heard a lawyer describe the Bay Mills litigation the other day with an anecdote. He said, ‘You know, when I was a kid, some friends and I found a World War II grenade. And we decided we were going to blow it up. So we pulled the pin and we threw it. Nothing happened. It was a dud.’ Fortunately, no one was hurt, and I think that a lot of Indian country feels that way about the <em>Bay Mills</em> decision. The Bay Mills Tribe took a risk with sovereign immunity – and fortunately, no one was hurt. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the decision and it was a 5 to 4 decision in favor of tribal sovereignty.</p>
<p>Justice Kagan has exposure to Indian law because of her time as Dean of Harvard Law School. I know that she had several opportunities to interact with Indian law scholars and give speeches around events related to Indian law because of the Oneida Nation’s endowed <a href="http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/pressroom/morenews/43976127.html" target="_blank">Indian law chair</a>. That had a subtle, but important impact in educating her, I’m sure. Some of the Justices on the Supreme Court don’t know anything about Indian tribes except what they read in briefs. She’s had more experience because of her time at Harvard. So that shows the importance of the Oneida Chair. I feel like we dodged a bullet in the <em>Bay Mills </em>case. The Supreme Court did the right thing and recognized the existence and importance of sovereign immunity, so that’s a good thing. But it makes me nervous to keep testing the limits of tribal sovereignty in this Supreme Court. Sometimes we will lose, as in Carcieri, Patchak, and the tragic Baby Girl case.</p>
<p><strong>The majority on the opposing side relied on the idea of the </strong><a href="http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org" target="_blank"><strong>Doctrine of Discovery</strong></a><strong> to support their position. It’s not that Bay Mills won; it’s what it cost – which was another affirmation from the Supreme Court that this thing called Doctrine of Discovery is still in play and still determines our relationships. And everybody knows it’s rubbish. It’s outdated, it’s racist, it’s everything negative, but courts still rely on it. Do you have an opinion on that?</strong></p>
<p>Well, I’m a real pragmatic person. My position demands it. We should try to improve the world and legal jurisprudence, and we have to be opportunistic. Now and then we get lucky. While I was a law professor, I mostly worked on criminal justice issues and I always thought, like most Indian law scholars, that the <em>Oliphant </em>decision was terrible. [<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=435&amp;invol=191" target="_blank"><em>Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe</em></a> in which the high court ruled that Indian tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians, and hence may not assume such jurisdiction unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress.] However, I didn’t spend time writing <em>Law Revie</em>w articles saying that we should overturn <em>Oliphant</em> and restore tribal authority over non-Indians because I thought that was a bridge too far. I just didn’t think that would happen in my lifetime – kind of like an African-American being elected president of the United States. I was much more pragmatic. A lot of my scholarship was oriented toward restoring felony jurisdiction to tribes over their own people first. My belief was that, once we have successfully obtained felony jurisdiction over our own members, and shown that we can exercise it responsibly, then we’ll have a much stronger argument that we can exercise jurisdiction over others. So, I was kind of the modest guy and, lo and behold, a short time later the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/tribal/tribal-law-and-order-act" target="_blank">Tribal Law and Order Act</a> passed, which gave tribes felony jurisdiction over their own members. I was very happy, but I thought that it would be years before we would proceed to that next step to unwinding Oliphant. But in 2013, we got the <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s47enr/pdf/BILLS-113s47enr.pdf" target="_blank">Violence Against Women Act</a> Reauthorization, which is an <em>Oliphant </em>fix and extends jurisdiction over non-Indians. It’s just mind-boggling sometimes how fast things can change. It’s very heartening when that kind of thing happens. So I try not to be too cynical. I also realize that I can’t predict things very well. I am grateful that we have advocates who “think big” and don’t get weighed down by cynicism.</p>
<p></div></div></div>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:00:00 +0000kpolisse157867 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.comhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/11/17/bia-head-kevin-washburn-speaks-ictmn-about-bay-mills-and-need-resolve-water-rights-157867#commentsNon-Indians and Tribal Criminal Jurisdictionhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/12/23/non-indians-and-tribal-criminal-jurisdiction-146431
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>According to current U.S. legal interpretations, non-Indian U.S. citizens are not subject to tribal criminal jurisdiction. A critical well-known case is where the U.S.</p></div></div></div>Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:00:00 +0000leeanne146431 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.comhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/12/23/non-indians-and-tribal-criminal-jurisdiction-146431#commentsCrime Data Misrepresented to Serve Hidden Tribal Agendahttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/14/crime-data-misrepresented-serve-hidden-tribal-agenda
<fieldset class="field-group-fieldset group-opinions-body form-wrapper" id="node_opinion_rss_group_opinions_body"><legend><span class="fieldset-legend">Body</span></legend><div class="fieldset-wrapper"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>On July 23, 2008, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-NE), chairman of the <a title="Senate Committee on Indian Affairs" href="http://www.indian.senate.gov/" target="_blank">Senate Committee on Indian Affairs </a>(SCIA), introduced a bill titled <a title="Tribal Law and Order Act of 2008" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6583" target="_blank">Tribal Law and Order Act of 2008</a> (S.3320). Dorgan said the purpose of the bill to address needed reforms in Indian country law enforcement. According to Dorgan, S.3320 intends to address a wide range of issues. Several issues addressed by the bill will impact the rights of Indians and non-Indians. If passed in its current form, the bill would increase the length of sentences that tribal courts can impose and would expand tribal police powers to arrest non-Indians through cross-deputization. The legislation seeks ways to protect Indian women from rape.</p>
<p>The focus on Indian rape crimes exploded into the public arena in 2004 when the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published a report titled “<a title="American Indians and Crime" href="www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic.pdf" target="_blank">American Indians and Crime</a>.” The report revealed that American Indians were victims of crime at a rate twice as high as the national average. The press release for the report stated, "About 7 in 10 violent victimizations of American Indians involved an offender who was described by the victim as someone of a different race--a substantially higher rate of interracial violence than experienced by white or black”. One statistic in the report was shocking. The BJS report revealed that 78% of the American Indian women who reported being raped identified their attacker’s race as white.</p>
<p>Following the American Indian and Crime Report from the BJS, another eye-opening report was published by Amnesty International (AI) in April of 2007. Like the BJS report, the AI report concluded American Indian women were victims of rape at a rate 2.5 times the rest of the nation. Unlike the BJS report, the AI report exposed a broad range of factors that increase the risk that American Indian women will be victimized by rape. Tribal leaders and their supporters not surprisingly focused on the BJS report and more specifically on the data that identified the perpetrators of rape on American Indian women as white 80% of the time.</p>
<p>Over the past two years, the tribal sovereignty lobby has missed few opportunities to complain about non-Indians raping American Indian women and the cause of it—the lack of authority to arrest and prosecute non-Indian predators—the United States Supreme Court case of <em>Oliphant v Suquamish Tribe</em>. In Oliphant, the Supreme Court, in 1978, ruled that tribal courts must not have jurisdiction over non-Indians because that power is inconsistent with their status as “ dependent” sovereigns.</p>
<p>Since the day the decision was rendered, tribes and their tribal sovereignty supporters have considered this case to be the one of most objectionable infringements on tribal sovereignty. Since Oliphant, the Supreme Court rendered five more court decisions (Montana, Brendale, Strate, Hicks and Atkinson) that further limited tribal regulatory or judicial powers over non-Indians.</p>
<p>Reeling from these perceived setbacks, tribal leaders and their lawyers joined with academia to discuss ways to stem the tide of losses at the Supreme Court. Two projects that emerged from this effort are the Tribal Supreme Court project run by the <a title="Native American Rights Fund" href="http://www.narf.org/" target="_blank">Native American Rights Fund</a> and a largely unknown project known as the <a title="Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative" href="http://www.civilrights.org/indigenous/tribal-sovereignty/" target="_blank">Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative</a> or TSPI.</p>
<p>N. Bruce Duthu, noted Indian law expert and Professor of Law at the Vermont School of Law, in his book, <a title="American Indians and the Law" href="http://www.amazon.com/American-Indians-Law-Penguin-Penguins/dp/0670018570" target="_blank"><em>American Indians and the Law</em></a>, reveals TSPI was born on September 11, 2001 while terrorists where attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Tribal leaders, lawyers and unnamed members of Congress met with Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) to plan a frontal assault on any Supreme Court’s decision that, in their opinion, eroded tribal sovereignty.</p>
<p>In 2002, this collaboration produced a “Concept Paper” and a draft bill that called on Congress to proclaim tribes as full territorial sovereigns. If passed into law, the federal legislation would overturn a multitude of Supreme Courts cases and federal laws which limit tribal sovereignty to only those powers needed for tribal self-government. In other words, the draft bill intended to roll back federal Indian policy back to 1832, when the Supreme Court ruled, in case of <em>Worcester v. Georgia</em> that the Cherokee Tribe was immune from the state laws or Georgia.</p>
<p>A lot has changed since 1832. To expect the federal government to allow Indian tribes full territorial sovereignty in today’s complex world would seem irrational since most of the laws the TSPI seeks to overturn were created specifically to address the inability of tribal governments to effectively deal with their own crime problems. These laws include the <a title="Indian Country Crimes Act" href="http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossBlakleyLawLibrary/ResearchNow/IndianLawPortal/IndianCrimesActs.aspx#icca" target="_blank">Indian Country Crimes Act</a> (1834), the <a title="Major Crimes Act" href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00679.htm" target="_blank">Major Crimes Act</a> (1885), <a title="Public Law 280" href="http://www.aidainc.net/Publications/pl280.htm" target="_blank">Public Law 280</a> (1953) and the <a title="Indian Civil Rights Act" href="http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/icra1968.htm" target="_blank">Indian Civil Rights Act</a> (1968).</p>
<p>The Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative is now the seminal statement of the pro-tribal sovereignty (super-sovereignty) movement to declare that Indian tribal governments are now ready to accept the full responsibility to manage their own law enforcement in a culturally appropriate fashion. Unfortunately, the non-Indians that the super- sovereignty movement wants the authority to arrest and prosecute may find some tribal courts decidedly unfamiliar to them. The Mescalero Apache Tribe recently advertised for a “Chief Judge”. Among the list of qualifications, the Tribe requires the successful candidate to, “[n]ever have been convicted of a felony, nor a misdemeanor within the past year.”</p>
<p>It is precisely this inability on the part of some tribes to implement effective justice systems that force the federal government and states to intervene in reservation law enforcement.</p>
<p>Another failure of tribal law enforcement is the reluctance to face the facts about the source of reservation crime. Most reservation crime is Indian on Indian according to a recent South Dakota study (<a href="http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/office/publications/pdf/AIJRP.pdf">http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/office/publications/pdf/AIJRP.pdf</a>) , by their Attorney General Larry Long. In cases of intentional murder of American Indians, American Indians were the perpetrators 92% of the time. In cases of rape of American Indian women, the perpetrator was also American Indian 83% of the time. This evidence is in direct conflict with numbers promoted by pro-tribal sovereignty movement. Other factors that influence reservation crimes are alcoholism and poverty.</p>
<p>Do federal restrictions on tribal courts to arrest and prosecute non-Indians create a major obstacle or loophole that prevents tribes from providing justice to tribal members?</p>
<p>In March, 2007, Diane Humetewa, a U.S. Attorney and member of the Hopi Tribe, testified before a hearing of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. She said, “It is important to understand that for every crime in Indian Country, there is a court of justice, be it tribal, state, or federal.” U.S Attorney and tribal member Humetewa contradicts the claims of the super-sovereignty supporters. There is no jurisdictional loop-hole for the arrest and prosecution of non-Indians who commit crimes on Indian reservations.</p>
<p>Following this dramatic and concise statement which should have clarified the issue, super-sovereignty attorney Riyaz A. Kanji testified to the same Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in September, 2007 complaining about the inability of tribal governments to arrest and prosecute non-Indians and he recommended that Congress pass legislation to restore tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians.</p>
<p>In support of his conclusion that tribes should have full territorial power over non-Indians, he states, “A 1999 United States Department of Justice study found that over 70% of Indian victims of violent crime were victimized by non-Indians.” He goes on to say that Indian women are raped at a rate two-and-a-half times the national average. The footnote in his testimony citing this statistic identifies the source as a study titled “American Indians and Crime” published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and written by Steven W. Perry.</p>
<p>A cursory review of published articles written by the super-sovereignty lobby shows that the two most quoted sources of data used to support the expansion of tribal sovereign powers are the Amnesty International report titled “Maze of Injustice” and two editions of the BJS report “American Indian and Crime” published in 1999 and another published in 2002 . These three reports have been the primary evidence offered by the super-sovereignty advocates to persuade lawmakers that justice on Indian reservations will never be achieved unless tribes can arrest and try non-Indians in tribal courts. As we will see, pro-sovereignty lobby misrepresents the data.</p>
<p>A closer look at the AI report reveals an important disclaimer conveniently overlooked by the super-sovereignty movement. The AI report warns, “In addition to underestimating the scale of sexual violence against Indigenous women, the limited data available does not give a comprehensive picture. For example, no statistics exist specifically on sexual violence in Indian Country and available data is more likely to represent urban than rural areas.” (Emphasis added)</p>
<p>The BJS report “American Indians and Crime” also reveals some serious misrepresentations of this report. A disclosure on the BJS website reads, “In the 2002 census an estimated 72% of tribes reported that they did not regularly submit criminal history records to State or Federal databases. Fewer than 25% said they submitted basic criminal records to State or Federal repositories. Three-quarters of the tribes did not submit sex offender information to the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and fewer than 20% indicated that their justice agencies were electronically networked within their jurisdiction or with Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies." (Emphasis added)</p>
<p>With this lack of tribal cooperation in crime reporting, how can the BJS be so confident to claim that non-Indians perpetrate 78% of the rapes of American Indian women?</p>
<p>Larry Long, the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota, read this study and not only questioned this contradiction; he conducted his own independent study to test the credibility of the BJS report. The South Dakota study states, “Our concern for the reliability of the BJS reports was rooted in the experience of prosecutors in and around Indian country in South Dakota. Plainly stated, this experience from South Dakota was inconsistent with the BJS findings. Additionally, the BJS reports deviate in important ways from academic literature describing violent crime victimization within and outside Indian country. Combined, these concerns created an overall sense among the authors that something was amiss in the findings of the BJS studies that necessitated further investigation.</p>
<p>While most everyone accepted the BJS report at face value, Attorney General Long and some curious federal Indian policy buffs were able to determine that the data for the BJS report titled “American Indians and Crime” is not even valid for Indian Country or Indian reservations!</p>
<p>The BJS relied upon data from a survey called the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCSV is based on data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau conducts surveys among American Indians living in urban areas and off-reservation places. What makes the statistics troubling is the subjects of the survey self-identify themselves as American Indians and the crimes and rapes they report are not cross verified against police records. BJS statistician, Perry, reveals that no effort was made to verify the claim that the respondents were in fact real American Indians nor did anyone cross verify the crimes they reported with local law enforcement agencies. Despite that, Perry is steadfast in his belief that the report data is valid for off-reservation crimes. Mr. Perry explained the section of the report showing high rates of non-Indians perpetrator rapes are “not a reflection of crime among Native Americans living in "Indian country"--on or near reservations, trust land, or tribal communities. However, they are a reflection of the nearly 76% of American Indians that do not live in Indian country.”</p>
<p>Did you catch the two nuanced terms used to identify Indians in his statement? At the BJS, they use the term “American Indian” to represent a racial category and the term used to identify a member of an Indian tribe is Native American. It is therefore American Indian women, living off reservation in urban areas who report their rapist as non-Indian over 70% of the time but we don’t know who’s raping the Native American women. Nowhere in the report is this important difference revealed.</p>
<p>So what does this mean? This means that the super-sovereignty movement has grossly misrepresented federal reports to further the self-serving goal to expand tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Tribal leaders, lawyers, academics and multiculturalists who have written articles, testified before government committees and lobbied law makers using these reports are either unethical or dangerously careless or both. Additionally the misrepresentation of these reports has been brought to the attention of the Bureau of Justice Statistics who has done nothing to clarify these misrepresentations. One must wonder why this subterfuge remains unchallenged.</p>
<p>One answer might be found by a close look at the Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative (TSPI). In his book, “American Indian and the Law” Duthu, reveals the intended result if Congress would pass their bill. He states, “The tribe’s civil, criminal and regulatory jurisdiction would extend throughout the tribe’s territory, trust and fee lands alike, and would reach all persons – members and non-members alike. The breathtaking sweep of these provisions is brought home when one considerers that the legislation would effectively overrule the decisions in Oliphant, Montana, Brendale, Strate, Hicks, and Atkinson.”</p>
<p>After reading such a proposal, one could conclude that the super-sovereignty advocate’s ultimate dream outcome would be to legislatively secede from the United States - until you realize that these sovereign tribes will remain dependent on federal funding!</p>
<p>Author Duthu returns to reality when he reminds us that the proposed federal legislation is subject to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for constitutional conflicts. Duthu cautions, “… there is still the possibility that the newly constituted Court could revisit Justice Kennedy’s off-repeated concerns about the constitutional limits on Congress’s power to subject American citizens to criminal trials in tribunals that do not provide the full array of constitutional rights.”</p>
<p>So what is going on here? The reality is that the two reports (American Indians and Crime by the BJS and the Maze of Injustice by Amnesty International) have been misrepresented to the press and federal elected leaders by the super-sovereign lobby. But why?</p>
<p>The proposed TSPI legislation was written in 2002 and has been under discussion and review for several years by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Some tribes have supported the proposal and some have expressed concerns. In “American Indian and the Law” author Duthu states,“Tribal leaders have not reached consensus on all aspects of the bill or an alternative strategy to sever portions of the bill and introduce them on a piecemeal basis.” Because the entire TSPI effort is radical and controversial and even some tribal leaders find aspects of it worrisome. It appears the full territorial super-sovereignty lobby has planned to attach their radical agenda onto the coattails of legitimate legislation using the “piecemeal basis”.</p>
<p>Thankfully Dorgan’s Tribal Law and Order Act of 2008 contains legitimate reforms. Under current law (Indian Civil Rights Act or ICRA) tribal courts cannot levy fines greater than $5000 nor order jail sentences longer than one year. These limits act as a disincentive for tribal courts to prosecute their own members in that the punishment is too weak for some violations of tribal law. Tribes rely on the federal government to prosecute crimes that fall under the Major Crimes Act, however federal law enforcement agencies (FBI, BIA) have a mixed record of timely response and often decline to prosecute a substantial number of cases filed by reservation law enforcement agencies.</p>
<p>In the efforts to impose their self-serving political agenda that would turn federal Indian law back 176 years, the super-sovereignty advocates are trying to eliminate perhaps the best solution for reducing crime in Indian Country. That solution already exists and it’s Public Law 280. Public Law 280 (PL 280) authorizes a state to extend some civil and all criminal laws over Indian Country. If done nationwide, PL 280 would eliminate much of the jurisdictional maze that now exists. States would apply their laws of general understanding and uniform punishments to both Indian and non-Indians alike. PL 280 would eliminate the need to revise tribal court limits and would remove unreliable federal policing and prosecutions from Indian country.</p>
<p>Unfortunately the super sovereignty advocates will claim that forcing Indian tribes to submit to state authority would be an assault on the inherent sovereign powers of Indian tribes – but what if there were reliable data to prove that Indian people living on reservations under PL 280 enjoy lower rates of crime than Indian people living on reservations where only tribal and federal law enforcement exists? We could then easily compare the effectiveness of justice between state law enforcement and tribal/federal authorities.</p>
<p>Perry of the BJS said they have not done that study. He surmised it would be difficult to obtain the data needed for such a study. He was right. As revealed on the BJS website, 72% of tribes don’t (won’t?) submit criminal history records to state or federal databases. Apparently sharing information is also viewed as a threat to tribal sovereignty by some people. It is clear that crime statistics for Indian reservations are unreliable or non-existent.</p>
<p>Tribes under federal law enforcement say the Department of Justice too often declines to prosecute case referrals from tribal police. Tribes need help to develop and maintain effective policing. Native women suffer from high rates of rape but the cause of that problem has been obscured by the super sovereignty advocates in their effort to mix their tribal sovereignty agenda with legitimate law enforcement reform.</p>
<p>The Dorgan bill thankfully addresses these real concerns and has not yet been swayed by the super-sovereignty advocates’ bogus claims that non-Indians are running rampant on reservations committing crimes with legal immunity.</p>
<p>Scott Seaborne is a retired businessman from Shawano County, Wisconsin. Mr. Seaborne and his extended family have owned property between two Indian reservations for 50 years. He is an active member of several grassroots organizations that work to protect the individual Constitutional rights of Indian reservation residents.</p>
</div></div></div></div></fieldset>
<div class="field field-name-field-short-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Short title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Crime Data Misrepres</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/category/all" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">All</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/crime" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Crime</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/category/government" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Government</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/legal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Legal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/category/politics" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Politics</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-full-name field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Full name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Scott Seaborne</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/department/canada" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Canada</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/byron-dorgan" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Byron Dorgan</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/senate-committee-indian-affairs" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Senate Committee on Indian Affairs</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/crime" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Crime</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/native-american-rights-fund" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Native American Rights Fund</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/indian-civil-rights-act-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Indian Civil Rights Act</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/oliphant-v-suquamish-tribe" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/major-crimes-act" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Major Crimes Act</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/worcester-v-georgia" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Worcester v. Georgia</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/scott-seaborne" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Scott Seaborne</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/tribal-law-and-order-act-2008" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Tribal Law and Order Act of 2008</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/tribal-sovereignty-protection-initiative" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Tribal Sovereignty Protection Initiative</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/tspi" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">TSPI</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/american-indians-and-law" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">American Indians and the Law</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/indian-country-crimes-act" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Indian Country Crimes Act</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/public-law-280" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Public Law 280</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author-image field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Author image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/author/scott-seaborne" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Scott Seaborne</a></div></div></div>Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:00:44 +0000mazecyrus118360 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.comhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/14/crime-data-misrepresented-serve-hidden-tribal-agenda#commentsConsensus Among Government and Tribal Justice Systemshttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/08/consensus-among-government-and-tribal-justice-systems-111965
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In this country, all citizens are equal under the law—in theory. In Indian country, however, the courts, police and incarceration facilities are multicultural, multiinstitutional and multijurisdictional.</p>
<p>That cuts both ways.</p></div></div></div>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:53 +0000leeanne111965 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.comhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/08/consensus-among-government-and-tribal-justice-systems-111965#commentsOliphant Decision Led to Jurisdictional Issues on Indian Reservationshttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/07/oliphant-decision-led-jurisdictional-issues-indian-reservations-70971
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In 1973, during the annual celebration of the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Mark David Oliphant, a non-tribal member, was arrested and charged with assaulting a tribal police officer and resisting arrest. At the same Suquamish tribal event, Daniel B.</p></div></div></div>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:00:48 +0000leeanne70971 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.comhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/07/oliphant-decision-led-jurisdictional-issues-indian-reservations-70971#commentsCircle of Violence: An Open Letter to People Regarding the Rape and Sexual Assault of Indian Womenhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/08/04/circle-violence-open-letter-people-regarding-rape-and-sexual-assault-indian-women
<fieldset class="field-group-fieldset group-opinions-body form-wrapper" id="node_opinion_rss_group_opinions_body"><legend><span class="fieldset-legend">Body</span></legend><div class="fieldset-wrapper"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The time has come to make meaningful change. Native women need to be protected from the sexual predators who repeatedly victimize them, without consequence or repercussion.</p>
<p>The statistics are appalling: More than one-third of Indian women will be either <em>raped</em> or <em>sexually assaulted</em> in their lifetimes. Moreover, non-Natives (primarily white men) commit 4 out of 5 of those rapes or sexual assaults. To put this statistic into perspective, that means that if your mother, your sister and your niece are sitting on a couch across the room from you, statistically one of those three Indian women will be either raped or sexually assaulted, most likely by a non-native man (including non-tribal member male).</p>
<p><a href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Circle-of-violence-stamp.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-42818" src="http://d1jrw5jterzxwu.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Circle-of-violence-stamp.jpg" alt="Circle of Violence series" width="162" height="68" /></a></p>
<p>Equally dreadful, nearly three out of five Indian women have been assaulted by either their spouse or intimate partner, and many of these asssaults are committed by non-Indian partners. Truly dastardly acts of the lowest form right? It’s worse: Surveys analyzing murder rates in counties largely composed of tribal lands found that Native women are murdered at a rate more than ten times the national average.</p>
<p>That’s all bad.</p>
<p>It is a travesty that any woman of any race has to wonder whether or not the law will protect her from rape, sexual assault and/or domestic violence, which in most cases, leaves the victim deeply and emotionally scarred, if not dead. Indian women, like all women, deserve to feel safe in their own homes and homelands. That is a fundamental human right. Indeed it’s the very right recognized by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 22, which specifically affirmed that “states shall take measures, in conjunction with the indigenous peoples, to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.”</p>
<p>• <a title="Resources for Victims - Indian Country Today Media Network.com" href="http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/07/resources-for-victims/"><strong>Click here for a list of resources for victims of abuse.</strong></a></p>
<p>It has taken the U.S. only thirty-something years to agree to this simple, fundamental right. To its credit, the Obama Administration has taken that very stand, saying—caveats aside—that the Declaration “expresses the aspirations of the United States, aspirations that this country seeks to achieve within the structure of the U.S. Constitution, laws, and international obligations, while also seeking, where appropriate, to improve our laws and policies.”</p>
<p>Still, Native women, unlike most women in the United States, cannot feel safe right now.</p>
<p>That’s a fact.</p>
<p>Worse yet, tribes do not have the capacity, <em>legally</em>, to protect their women from violent non-Native sexual predators on our own lands. Talk about worthless sovereignty. Many might argue that the ability to protect your people is the most fundamental aspect of a nation’s sovereignty. If Native people cannot protect the lifegivers in our own territory, what good is so-called “sovereignty” or “self-determination?”</p>
<p>The emasculation of Indian peoples’ ability to protect our women stems from a particular Supreme Court case that originated on one of the author’s home reservations, <em>Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe</em>. That case said that the executive branch and the legislative branches of the U.S. government snatched away Tribes’ ability to protect their homelands from non-Indians. Thus Indians cannot prosecute non-Indian criminals in tribal court. Obviously this created a jurisdictional maze on Indian reservations where criminal jurisdiction became a game of “Who’s On First”—nobody knows because it’s expensive, laborious and, seriously, why do the county or feds <em>really</em> care what happens to those Indians on the reservation? Consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice, which has <em>exclusive</em> jurisdiction over non-Natives committing crimes against Indians on Indian reservations — has failed pathetically to protect Indian women. Think about that: The DOJ is the only agency, per the Major Crimes Act and <em>Oliphant</em> case, that can prosecute the above hypothetical (your sister, your mom or your niece getting raped or sexually assaulted)—and it does nothing. Don’t believe that? According to a Government Accountability Office study, between 2000 and 2009, federal prosecutors declined one-half of all Indian Country crimes referred to them. Those same federal prosecutors declined to pursue charges in 67% of sexually related crimes during that same time period. Heck, in many instances the federal prosecutors <em>did not even tell</em> the Indian women that the federal prosecutor declined the case, therefore putting her in the position where she could run into the sexual predator again on the reservation.</p>
<p>Still, there’s hope. We are Indian people—we would not have made it this far if we did not retain hope. This is the ‘silver lining around the dark cloud’. But only if we act.</p>
<p>In 2005 Congress enacted Title IX of the Violence Against Women Act to address violence against Indian women. Specifically, Congress found that “Indian tribes require additional criminal justice and victim services resources to respond to violent assaults against women; and the unique legal relationship of the United States to Indian tribes creates a federal trust responsibility to assist tribal governments in safeguarding the lives of Indian women.”</p>
<p>So, how does that help us?</p>
<p>Well, after <em>Oliphant</em>, there was another Supreme Court case that involved tribes and criminal jurisdiction; that case was called <em>United States v. Lara</em>. Importantly, <em>Lara</em> held that <em>Oliphant</em> did not “set forth constitutional limits that prohibit Congress from taking actions that modify or adjust the tribe’s status.” <em>Lara</em> specifically did not weigh in on whether Congress could legislatively restore tribes’ ability to prosecute non-Indians. That’s huge.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Well, the Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization this year. This may be our only chance to fix the system, and there are three facts that give us leverage:</p>
<p>1) the U.S. Attorney’s absolutely and inarguably pathetic record of protecting Indian women,<br />
2) the economic development of tribes that has undoubtedly created much more stable and competent tribal court systems than existed when <em>Oliphant</em> came down, and<br />
3) the United States’ economic vulnerability—that is, prosecutions cost a lot of money, and if tribes can incur that cost in order to protect our homelands more effectively than the United States, that might be a “win-win.”</p>
<p>Because of the interest from the Administration, the DOJ (under the leadership of Secretary Holder) has taken the initiative to propose changes. But the proposed changes fall short. According to the “Framing Paper” circulated by DOJ to tribal leaders, titled <em>Proposed Federal Legislation to Help Tribal Communities Combat Violence Against Native Women</em>, they propose three legislative amendments to the reauthorization wherein the most favorable is a partial Oliphant fix. Granted each of the proposed changes are intended to help curtail the problem. However, like many of the past authorizations (2000 and 2005, respectfully) that included amended improvements piecemeal, they have yielded little relief or protection to the Native women victims. The statistics simply haven’t changed much over the years despite changes to the legislation.</p>
<p>Bad case law that singles out tribes and results in harmful treatment must be given strict scrutiny and must be rejected where it denies equal protection. Indeed, those tribes that are capable and ready to take over criminal jurisdiction of non-Indians within their reservations need and deserve a clean Oliphant fix in the reauthorization.</p>
<p>Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to contact our tribal leadership ASAP to make this a priority at the tribal council level. After your tribal council members understand how important this issue is, direct your elected leaders to contact United States legislators and DOJ to press this opportunity to stop sexual violence against Indian women; we have a draft letter for your representatives, congressmen and congresswomen. We must attack now—this may be our only opportunity. This is not a sure-fire formula, to be sure. Still, it is the best that we have right now. We must protect our women. After all, if we do not, history shows us that no one else will.</p>
<p>Respectfully,</p>
<p>Michael O. Finley, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation</p>
<p>Gyasi Ross, Attorney, Blackfeet</p>
<p>Get Involved! Support the <a title="The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women" href="http://www.vawataskforce.org/" target="_blank">National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women</a>, the <a title="Sacred Circle | National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women" href="http://www.sacred-circle.com/" target="_blank">National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women</a> and/or the <a title="National Congress of American Indians: Domestic Violence" href="http://www.ncai.org/Domestic-Violence.51.0.html" target="_blank">NCAI Task Force to End Violence Against Native Women</a>. Helpful literature: Restoration of Native Sovereignty and Safety for Native Women, Vol. XVI, A Call to Action: VAWA Reauthorization.</p>
</div></div></div></div></fieldset>
<div class="field field-name-field-short-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Short title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Circle of Violence: </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Category:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/category/all" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">All</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/circle-violence" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Circle of violence</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/category/government" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Government</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/legal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Legal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/category/sovereignty" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sovereignty</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-full-name field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Full name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Gyasi Ross and Michael O. Finley</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/sexual-abuse" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sexual Abuse</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/domestic-violence" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Domestic Violence</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/sexual-assault" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sexual Assault</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/gyasi-ross" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Gyasi Ross</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/violence-against-women-act" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Violence Against Women Act</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/michael-o-finley" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Michael O. Finley</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/rape" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Rape</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/oliphant-v-suquamish-tribe" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/united-states-v-lara" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">United States v. Lara</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author-image field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Author image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/author/gyasi-ross-and-michael-o.-finley" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Gyasi Ross and Michael O. Finley</a></div></div></div>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 07:23:48 +0000jrobertson45798 at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.comhttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/08/04/circle-violence-open-letter-people-regarding-rape-and-sexual-assault-indian-women#comments